Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 770
Case No: A2/2010/1905/EATRF
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
MR JUSTICE KEITH sitting with two lay members
UKEAT/0535/09 AND UKEAT/0536/09

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 01/07/2011
Before :

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
LADY JUSTICE SMITH
and
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	WARDLE	Appellant	
	- and -		
	CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK	Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Simon Cheetham and Ms Amy Stroud (instructed by Messrs Pritchard Englefield) for the Appellant
Mr Christopher Jeans QC and Mr Paul Nicholls (instructed by Messrs Osborne Clarke) for the Respondent

Hearing dates : 12 April 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT

Lord Justice Elias : 
1.	We gave judgment in this case on 11 May 2011. In the light of the judgment the parties have agreed that the compensation payable to the appellant, Mr Wardle, prior to grossing up for tax and prior to uplift, is £192,361.67. Of that figure, £124,177.87 represents loss that is wholly referable to the dismissal. It is that figure which is subject to a percentage uplift which has to be applied in accordance with section 31 of the Employment Act 2002, to take account of Credit Agricole’s failure to follow the statutory procedures prior to dismissing Mr Wardle.
2.	The only outstanding issue now is what uplift should be allowed. The Employment Tribunal had awarded a 50% increase and the EAT had substituted a figure of 10%. This court held that the EAT was entitled to apply that uplift, given the size of the award.  However, since the award was reduced as a result of the judgment, we indicated that some modification of the 10% figure might be appropriate.
3.	Mr Wardle has personally made extensive submissions in writing, and has indicated that the uplift should be 30%. He has in the course of those submissions expressed his clear disagreement with the decision and seeks to re-open our conclusions with respect to it in various ways. That is not, however, something which we can now do.
4.	So far as the uplift itself is concerned, Mr Wardle submits this was a cynical and deliberate failure to comply with the procedures and that proper respect for the rule of law requires a significant uplift.  Mr Nicholls, counsel for Credit Agricole, thinks that 30% would be far too high and would give a figure which would well exceed any payment which might be made for injury to feelings. He suggests that the 10% which the EAT thought appropriate should be the relevant figure.
5.	In our judgment, bearing in mind the considerations identified in the main judgment, and having regard to the fact that there were serious and cavalier breaches of the procedures, as the Tribunal properly found, we consider that an appropriate figure would be 15%. That would increase the current net figure by a sum which is a little short of £19,000. The parties can work out the exact figure. 
Lady Justice Smith:
6.	I agree.
The Master of the Rolls:
7.	I also agree.